Nikole Hannah-Jones opens her essay by discussing the 2017 hearings to approve Betsy DeVos as secretary of education, specifically reacting to DeVos’s characterization of public schools as a “dead end” (para 1). Was this an effective way to launch into her analysis of public education, its history, and its role in a democracy? Keep in mind the audience as you support your response.

This question is about the article "Have We Lost Sight of the Promise of Public Schools?"

This was an effective way that Nikole Hannah-Jones found to address public education, its history and its role in a democracy.

Explanation:

The article written by Nikole Hannah-Jones has as main objective to show the history and the role of public education in the country's growth and democracy. She starts her argument by re-emphasizing the citizens' rules when the education department compared public schools to the "dead end" compared to private schools. However, even in the midst of public regulation in relation to this statement, public schools have increasingly lost their "public" nature and become as selective and elitist as prinviated schools, thus losing their role with democracy.

This is because democracy establishes public service (such as education) as a responsibility that governments have with their citizens through the payment of taxes. If all citizens pay taxes everyone should have the right to quality and equal public services, however, public schools have become selective, causing the children's parents to have to release money, often in large quantities, to reserve privileges to your children that are not offered to all students. In this way, the school really loses its democratic duty and ends up becoming a "death end".

what are the following?